Sure, it is always nice to get home-staters on the roster. But Washington is a pretty weak tennis state and the PNW is a pretty weak section, historically. I really don't think this is good advice. If I am wrong here, U Washington could save a lot of money by recruiting more at Sectionals than Nationals.

Click to expand...

The top three girls in Washington are four-star recruits this year. The top girl in Oregon is a three-star recruit.

Maybe someone who has time should compile a list of where the 50 five-star girls from last year's graduating class went to college this year. Then we could see what the odds appear to be for UW to get two of the five-stars every year until they have a solid program and can have a shot at attracting blue chips.

What percentage of ranked female juniors are going on to play in college these days? Back when I was coaching it was low. A lot of players just quit playing when they went into college. Either couldn't play for their preferred school or just wanted to do something else.

No, I don't doubt that's her reason. I don't remember saying or implying otherwise. I just think she is wrong. Lazy too. I believe that as long as she has that philosophy/attitude, she is going to dwell in the cellar of the Pac 12. Recruiting international players is not going to solve her problem, she's not going to beat the cream of PAC 12 with these players. To do that, she needs to make her program more attractive to the top American players. Don't see how she accomplishes that with her attitude. Get some more Americans and worse case she is still in the cellar of the pac 12 and and a couple of American kids get the educational opportunity they deserve.

Just as a little mathematics exercise, I wonder how many programs can sign the top 30 American juniors every year? Hmm, let's see: These programs have eight full scholarships for women, so they average two per year. The top 15 women's teams could swallow up all of the top 30 recruits every year. I suppose there would be no excuse for the top 15 programs to look overseas, in that case, which would leave none of the top 30 available for other schools.

But, of course, if you take over a 3-17 program, you are located in nice, rainy Seattle, you cannot offer more scholarship money than anyone else because on the women's side everyone is offering full rides, then obviously you should be able to sign blue chip players if you are a good recruiter and you are not lazy. Right.

Click to expand...

1. I think you are making my point for me. There are not enough top 30 juniors to go around, they are in high demand. UW is being unrealistic in thinking they are in a position to attract these players today. But she is right, she needs to attract these players to compete at the top of the PAC 12.

2. Since she can't get these players, her strategy is to go abroad to get players that can compete with these players. This strategy is failing on two counts a) the foreign players she has brought in have not shown that they are any more competitive at competing with the top of the pac 12 than the average 5 star(top ~100) Americans and b) this is getting her no closer to getting her program closer to being a top 15 program that can get her in a position to recruit top 30 players.

3. She needs to build her program on a solid foundation, one class at a time. She needs to set realistic recruiting goals which should a this point be primarily focused on 5 stars. From the northwest, if available. When she gets to be a top 25 program, and at least in the top half of the pac 12, she can make a legitimate recruiting pitch to top30. Right now, she is too impatient to do that, and just going for whatever foreign player has the best resume. Again, she seems to be trying to find a sliver bullet(s)

4. I take it you don't like Seattle, but Udub is a very good University and many young people do like Seattle, more so than some of the other cities that some top colleges are located in. I don't think the quality if her university or its location presents any recruiting disadvantage.

Looks like both Claire Liu and Abby D will be playing at the Nike International at Club Med in about a month against best 12 yr olds in the world that should be a good measuring stick to see how they do. Where's TCF? He never got back to us on the match between his daughter and AD.

4. I take it you don't like Seattle, but Udub is a very good University and many young people do like Seattle, more so than some of the other cities that some top colleges are located in. I don't think the quality if her university or its location presents any recruiting disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Weather, and the ability to play outdoors pretty much whenever you want, can be big selling points in tennis recruiting. There are schools with great indoor facilities that use the facilities as a sales pitch to overcome this disadvantage to some degree. The Ohio State men's team is a good example. But you will notice that they recruit mainly M-i-d-western players who are already used to the weather, plus they usually have a small number of overseas players (typically just one or two in the top six). The quality of M-i-d-western boys in the juniors is quite a bit higher than the quality of Northwestern girls. So the Washington women's coach really needs to recruit California five stars who just miss out on being recruited by the top schools, and convince them to head north a little ways. Perhaps that is tougher than you think. Maybe we should look at where the California five-star girls have been going in recent years to get an idea.

Weather, and the ability to play outdoors pretty much whenever you want, can be big selling points in tennis recruiting. There are schools with great indoor facilities that use the facilities as a sales pitch to overcome this disadvantage to some degree. The Ohio State men's team is a good example. But you will notice that they recruit mainly M-i-d-western players who are already used to the weather, plus they usually have a small number of overseas players (typically just one or two in the top six). The quality of M-i-d-western boys in the juniors is quite a bit higher than the quality of Northwestern girls. So the Washington women's coach really needs to recruit California five stars who just miss out on being recruited by the top schools, and convince them to head north a little ways. Perhaps that is tougher than you think. Maybe we should look at where the California five-star girls have been going in recent years to get an idea.

Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of good points here. I think it is kinda self-apparent that competitive Pacific Northwest D1 schools do not enjoy recruiting advantages based on geography/weather over other competitive D1 schools from traditional tennis hotbeds in So Cal and the Southeast, for example.

I think it is wrong and silly for another poster to say that "I take it you don't like Seattle", which gives the appearance of ascribing personal prejudice and bias to the reasonable, objective opinions you have expressed here

No, worst case is that her team loses every game in the PAC-12 and has a worse non-conference record than they have achieved in recent years, also. For example, they could go 3-17 overall.

Click to expand...

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

Click to expand...

At our local college the coach(canadian) has NO pressure from the A.D. to win. He has FINALLY listened to me and recruited almost all players from Georgia. I told him that he should recruit all Georgia kids and try to develop players verse recruit foreign players that hes never seen play.If A.D.s took this same approach with a non revenue sport like tennis then i think it will help with the college tennis problem. The big problem is most college tennis coaches are cluless about player development and just know how to recruit.The school is division 2 and most American kids think d2 is a bad thing and would rather get no scholarship money and play number 9 for a d1 team and never see any playing time but say they play d1.Alot of American kids think they are better than they really are and think they should be playing d1 tennis when in reality d2 would be a better spot.

At our local college the coach(canadian) has NO pressure from the A.D. to win. He has FINALLY listened to me and recruited almost all players from Georgia. I told him that he should recruit all Georgia kids and try to develop players verse recruit foreign players that hes never seen play.If A.D.s took this same approach with a non revenue sport like tennis then i think it will help with the college tennis problem. The big problem is most college tennis coaches are cluless about player development and just know how to recruit.The school is division 2 and most American kids think d2 is a bad thing and would rather get no scholarship money and play number 9 for a d1 team and never see any playing time but say they play d1.Alot of American kids think they are better than they really are and think they should be playing d1 tennis when in reality d2 would be a better spot.

Click to expand...

Well good for him. But D2 and no pressure from AD- he should be getting American kids. The D2 (or D3) versus D1 problem is prevalent in almost all college sports. Most American kids that are stars at the high school level think they should be D1 in almost every sport. Their is a huge prestige factor between the highest level and the lower levels. Very difficult to get around this perception until these kids realize they are not as good as they think they are and they might be better off being a major part of D2 team rather than a benchwarmer on a D1 team.

Weather, and the ability to play outdoors pretty much whenever you want, can be big selling points in tennis recruiting. There are schools with great indoor facilities that use the facilities as a sales pitch to overcome this disadvantage to some degree. The Ohio State men's team is a good example. But you will notice that they recruit mainly M-i-d-western players who are already used to the weather, plus they usually have a small number of overseas players (typically just one or two in the top six). The quality of M-i-d-western boys in the juniors is quite a bit higher than the quality of Northwestern girls. So the Washington women's coach really needs to recruit California five stars who just miss out on being recruited by the top schools, and convince them to head north a little ways. Perhaps that is tougher than you think. Maybe we should look at where the California five-star girls have been going in recent years to get an idea.

Click to expand...

They have modern indoor facility there as well. When you combine the city, the quality of the university, and yes the weather, I don't think she's at a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis the majority of other teams in her division. Maybe not as an attractive destination as the CA schools, but on par with the other schools. Particular recruits may prefer the year round sunshine of Arizona and Utah, but others may may not like the heat.

Yes, California is the next logical recruitment area. Most coaches start in the backyard and then the next step is in their conference. All those road trips are recruiting trips as well.

I agree- the worst case scenario is that she will do as bad as the team she took over in which case she will lose her job. That is actually a realistic scenario. Of course it is easy to say yes recruit more Americans when it is not your job on the line. Most coaches if given the choice between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, would choose to keep their jobs. The only way I can see that ever changing is if the AD decides that giving Americans more scholarships is more important than winning at their particular (nonpowerhouse tennis) college or the NCAA decides to limit the number of foreign scholies.

Click to expand...

Overall record : I don't think it matters. In a conference like the PAC-12, it how you do in the conference that matters. In addition, she explicitly stated that the reason she recruits foreign players was becuase she needed to be more competitive in her conference, not becuase she wanted to do better out of conference. As I said, How's that working out for her ? If the AD decides to cut her loose, it going to be cause of her conference record, not her ITA ranking. I'm pretty sure the AD's bonus is tied to conference rankings and titles. I'd wager a bet the women tennis team ITA ranking does not factor into his bonus.

Again, the foreign players she has bought in have shown they are no more competitive in her conference than an average American 5 star(AKA Marginally competitive American Players) that she claims are not good enough for her. Sorry, the choice you have layed out, between losing their jobs and giving marginally competitive American players more scholarships, is just not the reality of the situation.

She needs to set realistic recruiting goals, get the best Americans she can get, maybe supplement them with a couple of foreign players, not six, ad improve the program a step at a time.

I think it is wrong and silly for another poster to say that "I take it you don't like Seattle", which gives the appearance of ascribing personal prejudice and bias to the reasonable, objective opinions you have expressed here

Click to expand...

I used to have a brother who lived with his wife and child in the Seattle area when he worked at Boeing. We visited several times up there. Beautiful area. We often scheduled family vacations in the Pacific Northwest for that reason. Spent one vacation going down the Oregon coast, another in the San Juan Islands, and another in Victoria, British Columbia, and surrounding sites, including Whistler (summer, not skiing season). I think that area is really pretty. When I narrowed down my list of schools to consider attending for my Ph.D., the University of Washington was on the final list of four schools.

Not a personal dislike of Seattle or UW. But I have heard top tennis players in Virginia say that they are probably heading farther south for college. An outstanding indoor facility at UVa has been a big boost to our recruiting here. A lot of players just don't want to be anywhere for tennis if the weather will force them indoors a good bit of the time. Some of the rainier places are among the most beautiful to visit, because it takes some rain to have some natural beauty. But we are talking about tennis, not a week's vacation.

Not a personal dislike of Seattle or UW. But I have heard top tennis players in Virginia say that they are probably heading farther south for college. An outstanding indoor facility at UVa has been a big boost to our recruiting here. A lot of players just don't want to be anywhere for tennis if the weather will force them indoors a good bit of the time. Some of the rainier places are among the most beautiful to visit, because it takes some rain to have some natural beauty. But we are talking about tennis, not a week's vacation.

Click to expand...

This is consistent with my slice of experience as well.

I do not agree with the claim of another poster that UW does not have a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis most other Pac-12 teams in tennis. I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, and ASU....at least.....have recruiting advantages over UW in tennis.

A big surprise in Pac-12 tennis is Washington State, in cold, remote Pullman, WA. Wonder how they did it. By recruiting in their back yard? Whatever they have done might be a model for UW.

I do not agree with the claim of another poster that UW does not have a recruiting disadvantage vis-a-vis most other Pac-12 teams in tennis. I think Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, and ASU....at least.....have recruiting advantages over UW in tennis.

Click to expand...

The first four definitely have an overall advantage. The Arizona schools I feel are a toss up, and really come down to the player. It's not just the weather, University of Washington is significantly better school academically and that is something I hope factors into recruit decisions. If the tennis programs were of equal quality, and I had to recommend one to my child, I would certainly recommend UW over the Arizona schools. I understand this is a matter of opinion and we don't agree.

The first four definitely have an overall advantage. The Arizona schools I feel are a toss up, and really come down to the player. It's not just the weather, University of Washington is significantly better school academically and that is something I hope factors into recruit decisions. If the tennis programs were of equal quality, and I had to recommend one to my child, I would certainly recommend UW over the Arizona schools. I understand this is a matter of opinion and we don't agree.

Click to expand...

If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?

For the sake of your child's potential college tennis career, I hope no coach of a competitive D1 program....except Hawaii.....takes your advice.

Hmmmmmm.....maybe I'll check the U Hawaii roster right now to see if they are following your advice and succeeding at it, or are ending up doing what the UW and WSU coaches are doing.

**********

Looks like U Hawaii is taking the Jill Hultquist route. I do not know if you have the same objections about the U Hawaii program as you do about U Washington, but it seems to me the points you are trying to make would be pretty applicable in your own back yard.

I think the whole complaint here is that there are a lot of coaches who look at the other teams on their schedules and say, "I cannot compete with those teams unless I get blue chip recruits or foreign recruits who are equivalent to blue chips. So, I will offer scholarships to blue chips, especially if they are local or have some tie to my university, but I am unlikely to get many of them, so most of my recruiting will probably be overseas."

However, they say this to themselves, not in an interview. That is the whole beef here. The UW women's coach was honest about her situation. I have not seen that kind of bluntness from too many other coaches. The Baylor men's coach was interviewed a couple of years ago and was asked about the foreign recruits issue, and said the same thing. But most coaches keep quiet about it. even if they are thinking the exact same thoughts. Apparently, admitting the truth in public makes you a really bad coach, while doing the exact same recruiting without talking about it is fine.

If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?

For the sake of your child's potential college tennis career, I hope no coach of a competitive D1 program....except Hawaii.....takes your advice.

Hmmmmmm.....maybe I'll check the U Hawaii roster right now to see if they are following your advice and succeeding at it, or are ending up doing what the UW and WSU coaches are doing.

**********

Looks like U Hawaii is taking the Jill Hultquist route. I do not know if you have the same objections about the U Hawaii program as you do about U Washington, but it seems to me the points you are trying to make would be pretty applicable in your own back yard.

Click to expand...

For someone who claims to strive for accuracy, you are pretty good an inaccurately representing what I have said.

To repeat, primary is not a synonym for as exclusive, it is more like 'first'; go look it up. Secondarily, you explore the geographic territory covered by your conference. Thirdly you go nationally and internationally. This is recruiting 101.

The people at UH are good people. Even with our great weather, they have their own particular set of recruiting challenges. If you know any 5,4 or 3 stars encourage them to contact our coaches. They will not be told don't bother if you're not top 30.

I think the whole complaint here is that there are a lot of coaches who look at the other teams on their schedules and say, "I cannot compete with those teams unless I get blue chip recruits or foreign recruits who are equivalent to blue chips. So, I will offer scholarships to blue chips, especially if they are local or have some tie to my university, but I am unlikely to get many of them, so most of my recruiting will probably be overseas."

However, they say this to themselves, not in an interview. That is the whole beef here. The UW women's coach was honest about her situation. I have not seen that kind of bluntness from too many other coaches. The Baylor men's coach was interviewed a couple of years ago and was asked about the foreign recruits issue, and said the same thing. But most coaches keep quiet about it. even if they are thinking the exact same thoughts. Apparently, admitting the truth in public makes you a really bad coach, while doing the exact same recruiting without talking about it is fine.

Click to expand...

I think that's part of it, it's not the whole beef. She opened the door, I'm just walking through it.

I also think its where she draws the line, top 30, and the bigger fallacy that these 'experts from abroad' are somehow equivalent to the 'blue chips' she has to compete against. I think the records show that most of these kids turn out to be no better than than the 5 star Americans she feels are not good enough. People need to see that and understand our tennis kids are pretty darn good, and deserve better consideration from our coaches, who seem to be too quick to go abroad.

For someone who claims to strive for accuracy, you are pretty good an inaccurately representing what I have said.

To repeat, primary is not a synonym for as exclusive, it is more like 'first'; go look it up. Secondarily, you explore the geographic territory covered by your conference. Thirdly you go nationally and internationally. This is recruiting 101.

Click to expand...

Whoa, you are not usually so condescending unless your feelings are hurt. Don't know where I said or suggested "primary" is a synonym for "exclusive".

What I did say was "If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?"

Translation: If she can be successful....if..... in finding two recruits a year (most years) from the PNW as her primary/first/non-exclusive priority, non-PNWers won't get recruited.

I'm standing by that one.

Maybe after you've been through the recruiting process, if that happens, you will welcome candor such as Jill Hultquist's.............instead of false encomiums that are heard from more than a few coaches who sometimes string along kids right through to the end of the process, even though they knew from the beginning they would never give them an offer.

The people at UH are good people. Even with our great weather, they have their own particular set of recruiting challenges. If you know any 5,4 or 3 stars encourage them to contact our coaches. They will not be told don't bother if you're not top 30.

Click to expand...

Good people = don't talk about why you are taking foreign players. It is ok to take 7 out 9 players from foreign countries like last years women's UH team (more than UW!) as long as keep your mouth shut and don't make comments about it.

Hmm why are they not growing an american base of players? Why should you encourage 3,4,5 star players to contact them? Isn't that the coaches job to find these players and recruit them? Is it because they are lazy, bad recruiters or just pulling the trigger too soon on offering foreigners a scholie when a there are so many deserving American girls out there?

I think that's part of it, it's not the whole beef. She opened the door, I'm just walking through it.

I also think its where she draws the line, top 30, and the bigger fallacy that these 'experts from abroad' are somehow equivalent to the 'blue chips' she has to compete against. I think the records show that most of these kids turn out to be no better than than the 5 star Americans she feels are not good enough. People need to see that and understand our tennis kids are pretty darn good, and deserve better consideration from our coaches, who seem to be too quick to go abroad.

Click to expand...

Talent evaluation in foreign recruiting is difficult. Lots of foreign recruits sound great, but they don't play the same tournaments as most of our American players, so it is hard to compare them. I have seen a lot of foreign players turn out to be mediocre by the standards of the team that recruited them. In fact, they often end up transferring to a slightly lesser school pretty quickly, after the player and coach have both figured out the situation in the first year. (Maros Horny Baylor->Maryland, Dennis Lengsfeld Baylor->Auburn, Jordi Vives USC->FGCU are a few examples on the men's side.)

So, the UW foreign recruits might not turn out to be competitive with the blue chips at USC, UCLA, and Stanford. But the UW women's coach knows with even greater certainty that the five-stars and four-stars in the Pacific Northwest will not be competitive with those blue chips, because they DO play the same tournaments, and the blue chips totally dominate them. With a foreign recruit, at least there is a possibility that they will be as good as their paper credentials make them sound.

By the way, it seems that Cal-Berkeley has a lot of foreign women at the top of their lineup. That is a pretty high reputation school, with pretty moderate weather, and a better tradition of high rankings to start from when recruiting. Cal would seem like a much more likely target of criticism on this score than UW, except for one factor: the interview quote.

By the way, it seems that Cal-Berkeley has a lot of foreign women at the top of their lineup. That is a pretty high reputation school, with pretty moderate weather, and a better tradition of high rankings to start from when recruiting. Cal would seem like a much more likely target of criticism on this score than UW, except for one factor: the interview quote.

Click to expand...

Her quote, and her record. Cal is competitive. UW is not. If she was challenging at the top if the conference, than that would support her argument. She is not. The cal roster also has more americans than the UW roster.

Whoa, you are not usually so condescending unless your feelings are hurt. Don't know where I said or suggested "primary" is a synonym for "exclusive".

What I did say was "If Jill Hultquist takes your advice to recruit as a primary priority in her back yard....the PNW.....and is successful, you wouldn't have much of a chance to be making such a parental recommendation living out there in Hawaii, would you?"

Translation: If she can be successful....if..... in finding two recruits a year (most years) from the PNW as her primary/first/non-exclusive priority, non-PNWers won't get recruited.

Anyway, you say you know that primary is different from exclusive, but then you posit the she recruits exclusively from NW and winds up with a roster that is exclusively made of up PNW'ers ?? Huh ?

Reality is she should strive to find one every year. Wont always happen. Some years the talent won't be there, some years it will. She needs to take a hard run at every five star and even take a look the top four stars in her section.

I have said, in two separate posts in this thread, that a couple of foreign kids on the roster is a good thing, and Clark is spot on saying that she should recruiting California hard.

First, if you go on a message board and tell someone to "go look it up", I think it is not unreasonable to expect that someone would consider that to be condescending...... and in fact, I think there might be a pretty good chance that more direct, graphic terms would be used to describe any person who feels a compulsion to post that way.

Second, if requirements.....in any facet of business or sports.....can be satisfied through the first priority solutions, I think you don't get to the secondary priority solutions. Otherwise, I think, the first priority would not be the first priority.

Just my opinions. Now on to the substance.

I am not ready to give Jill Hultquist advice that she should take a run at every five star, and the top four stars in her section. And I don't know why that advice....whether it is good or bad..... is even directed solely at her and not at the Washington State coach or the U Hawaii coach, for example, or any other coach.

As a parent, I welcome her candor about her recruiting standards. Someday, if you go through the recruiting process as a parent, you may begin to understand where I am coming from, even if you apparently do not understand now.

Maybe the disconnect in our views is that you are primarily interested in the success of the U Washington women's tennis program (why this might be, you haven't disclosed), and I am primarily interested here in the Junior Forum in the perspective of potential recruits who are sizing up their chances of getting an offer from UW and trying to figure how much time, effort and emotion to devote to that endeavor.

I'll take a Jill Hultquist approach any day over the smooth talkers and Johnny and Janey Feel Goods who have no qualms about raising false expectations among recruits and letting them crash in a heap.

First, if you go on a message board and tell someone to "go look it up", I think it is not unreasonable to expect that someone would consider that to be condescending...... and in fact, I think there might be a pretty good chance that more direct, graphic terms would be used to describe any person who feels a compulsion to post that way.

Click to expand...

Pot, kettle, black. Sorry, but do you really think people don't see through your passive aggressive routine ? Lecture me in the number of blue chips and the 'need for accuracy' and your snarky little "but you knew that" comments, and then call me condescending...amazing...

Second, if requirements.....in any facet of business or sports.....can be satisfied through the first priority solutions, I think you don't get to the secondary priority solutions. Otherwise, I think, the first priority would not be the first priority.

Click to expand...

This is just, well, silly. Coaches, or business people, or elementary school kids for that matter, are expected to manage multiple, sometimes conflicting priorities. For instance one of my primary responsibilities is to work to support my family, but I still manage to spend time(too much) on this message board, and do other things, like eat, for instance. I really can't believe how I have to explain how the PNW should be her primary but not exclusive area for recruiting.

I am not ready to give Jill Hultquist advice that she should take a run at every five star, and the top four stars in her section. And I don't know why that advice....whether it is good or bad..... is even directed solely at her and not at the Washington State coach or the U Hawaii coach, for example, or any other coach.

Click to expand...

Have you even been reading this thread ? Its directed at her becuase she made the quote. And the thread was started(by someone else, not me) because one of her foreign "blue chip" equivalents lost to a 12 year old.I didn't start this thread to call her out. But I don't mind doing it either.

Maybe the disconnect in our views is that you are primarily interested in the success of the U Washington women's tennis program (why this might be, you haven't disclosed), and I am primarily interested here in the Junior Forum in the perspective of potential recruits who are sizing up their chances of getting an offer from UW and trying to figure how much time, effort and emotion to devote to that endeavor.

Click to expand...

More passive-aggressive stuff, sweet. Imply all you want that I have some secret hidden motive but I think I have been very straight forward. I don't have any interest in University of Washington beyond the interest of the vast majority of tennis parents who are deeply disturbed at the trend in foreign scholarships. My concern is that another top 50 university has for all intents and purposes closed its doors to American tennis players. While there are a significant number of tennis scholarships available for women players, they increasingly being shut out of the best universities by coaches like this.

For someone who claims to strive for accuracy, you are pretty good an inaccurately representing what I have said.

To repeat, primary is not a synonym for as exclusive, it is more like 'first'; go look it up. Secondarily, you explore the geographic territory covered by your conference. Thirdly you go nationally and internationally. This is recruiting 101.

The people at UH are good people. Even with our great weather, they have their own particular set of recruiting challenges. If you know any 5,4 or 3 stars encourage them to contact our coaches. They will not be told don't bother if you're not top 30.

Click to expand...

Alohajrtennis

I actually had a chance to see UW womens team live over the past weekend in SD and they look pretty deep to me. They don't have a bonafide top 10 player but from 1-7, they are deep. My daughter played two of their players in her bracket and they are consistent, strong competitors. In fact, the UW player that my daughter played in the semis took USC, Stanford and UCLA to three sets last yr and beat Arizona and A State in dual matches. So it's not like they are getting blown out by the PAC 12 teams. The overall scores might be lopsided last yr but the matches were competitive. UW is just in a very tough conference.

They should be very competitive this yr in the PAC 12. As for UH, I lived in Hawaii for two years and know J Hernandez well. He has done a remarkable job of building his team from nowhere to a top 55 rankings last year. It's true that it is hard to recruit top Americans so he build his program with foreign players. Looks like UW did the same and should be better for it in the long run

Pot, kettle, black. Sorry, but do you really think people don't see through your passive aggressive routine ? Lecture me in the number of blue chips and the 'need for accuracy' and your snarky little "but you knew that" comments, and then call me condescending...amazing...

This is just, well, silly. Coaches, or business people, or elementary school kids for that matter, are expected to manage multiple, sometimes conflicting priorities. For instance one of my primary responsibilities is to work to support my family, but I still manage to spend time(too much) on this message board, and do other things, like eat, for instance. I really can't believe how I have to explain how the PNW should be her primary but not exclusive area for recruiting.

Have you even been reading this thread ? Its directed at her becuase she made the quote. And the thread was started(by someone else, not me) because one of her foreign "blue chip" equivalents lost to a 12 year old.I didn't start this thread to call her out. But I don't mind doing it either.

More passive-aggressive stuff, sweet. Imply all you want that I have some secret hidden motive but I think I have been very straight forward. I don't have any interest in University of Washington beyond the interest of the vast majority of tennis parents who are deeply disturbed at the trend in foreign scholarships. My concern is that another top 50 university has for all intents and purposes closed its doors to American tennis players. While there are a significant number of tennis scholarships available for women players, they increasingly being shut out of the best universities by coaches like this.

Click to expand...

Anything I say now would be repetitious because I still believe what I have said here, and I haven't been persuaded by your arguments or tone. But more repetition would undoubtedly be boring for the Board.

I will accept that you are part of a group that is "deeply disturbed", as you say. I guess in the process of discussion, countervailing points that would have tended to mitigate any disturbing feelings got under your skin. I regret that.

So, after this I'm off in responding to you here (I think), not ignoring you.....maybe you will choose to raise this topic in the College Forum, as has been done by others before, and express your disturbance and concerns there. If you do, one of the points I might make is that this is not a Jill Hultquist issue any more than it is a Jun Hernandez issue at U Hawaii. I think Jill Hultquist should be appreciated for her candor and for letting recruits know where they stand vis-a-vis her program.

EDIT: I guess I just repeated myself in that last sentence, sorry for that.

I actually had a chance to see UW womens team live over the past weekend in SD and they look pretty deep to me. They don't have a bonafide top 10 player but from 1-7, they are deep. My daughter played two of their players in her bracket and they are consistent, strong competitors. In fact, the UW player that my daughter played in the semis took USC, Stanford and UCLA to three sets last yr and beat Arizona and A State in dual matches. So it's not like they are getting blown out by the PAC 12 teams. The overall scores might be lopsided last yr but the matches were competitive. UW is just in a very tough conference.

They should be very competitive this yr in the PAC 12. As for UH, I lived in Hawaii for two years and know J Hernandez well. He has done a remarkable job of building his team from nowhere to a top 55 rankings last year. It's true that it is hard to recruit top Americans so he build his program with foreign players. Looks like UW did the same and should be better for it in the long run

Click to expand...

Aloha RCP,

There no question the UW girls are a talented group and no question they do play in a tough conference. Frankly its very surprising to me they have been near the bottom of the conference, instead of somewhere in the middle. The issue is the team is not doing any better in that conference than a team of 5 star Americans would do. And that's the issue - those are the players she thinks are not good enough for her team.

And I know everyone is clever enough to figure out where I am from becuase of my stupid handle, but I don't see the point of drawing UH into this just because I live in Hawaii. I don't represent UH, I did not attended there, but more importantly, Jun didn't make the comments she made, has actually won a conference title(yes I am aware it was not the Pac 12), and I know he doesn't share her attitude. And I honestly believe he would be very interested in talking to any 5, 4 or 3 star who wants to play for Hawaii. No, he did not ask me to post this.

And like like Hawaii, I dont think it appropriate to lump all coaches in with the UW coach and say they all think this way, she's just the only one being honest. I dont think that's the case. From the same interview, here is a quote from the Vanderbilt coach :

Geoff MacDonald, women's tennis coach, Vanderbilt

For MacDonald the debate is mostly a fairness issue. He is not opposed to one or two international players but a whole team of international players doesn't feel right to him. He says Title IX law forced colleges to spend as much money on women's athletics and provide as many opportunities for them.

"I don't know if the intent of Title IX was for a European pro player to come here and take a scholarship away from an American kid who might not be as good."

It is not uncommon for MacDonald to encounter coaches who go strictly overseas and make friends at pro tournaments in Europe. "If we were handing out math scholarships we wouldn't go to Finland and get the best mathematicians. Because this is competitive people are willing to go all over the world."​

So, I am willing to give most coaches the benefit of the doubt, unless they open their mouth and say something that removes that doubt.

Every coach has different challenges. Several times people have written something along the lines of "why dont you rag on the Washington State coach, they have all foreigners". Well, I don't really know what the attitude of the Washington State coach is, they are in more challenging recruiting situation that UW( Pullman is not Siberia, but it is not Seattle either, academically, Washington State is not UW) etc. I can see why it would be tough for them to get 5 stars, forget about clue chips. UW should be able to get 5 stars, and they should not be considering themselves too good for 5 stars.

The top ranked juniors, even 12s can beat significant d-1players, especially the homeschoolers. What's the point here? The kids at the top often aim for professional, whereas the college girls aren't usually looking to turn pro. If the 12 yr old and the uw girl played again, it might be6-1, 6-1. Let's see how it goes when this 12 yr old grows up and she has the pressure on her.

I can see why it would be tough for them to get 5 stars, forget about clue chips. UW should be able to get 5 stars, and they should not be considering themselves too good for 5 stars.

Click to expand...

If you look at UW roster. She definitely is not above taking 5 star Americans. The 3 americans on her roster are 5 Star, 3 star and unrated (from Hawaii no less)

The actual quote she gave in the orginal article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

If you look at UW roster. She definitely is not above taking 5 star Americans. The 3 americans on her roster are 5 Star, 3 star and unrated (from Hawaii no less)

The actual quote she gave in the orginal article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

Click to expand...

Goober, our family actually knows someone who was interested in UW a few years ago. Soon after expressing interest, she got a nice email back from Jill Hultquist saying thanks and that if you are not in the top 50 (top 50) or so on TRN, your chances of getting an offer were very low, but you are welcome to pursue a possible walk-on role if you wish.

The player was not top 50, so there was momentary disappointment....... but a feeling of relief not to have to read tea leaves, and lasting admiration for the candor of Jill Hultquist.

[I was going to say something else right here, but that would have just been repetition]

Goober, our family actually knows someone who was interested in UW a few years ago. Soon after expressing interest, she got a nice email back from Jill Hultquist saying thanks and that if you are not in the top 50 (top 50) or so on TRN, your chances of getting an offer were very low, but you are welcome to pursue a possible walk-on role if you wish.

The player was not top 50, so there was momentary disappointment....... but a feeling of relief not to have to read tea leaves, and lasting admiration for the candor of Jill Hultquist.

[I was going to say something else right here, but that would have just been repetition]

Click to expand...

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range. So if you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range. If you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

Click to expand...

TRN says there are 25 blue chips, and then the next 50 are five-stars, so that is 75. But we have seen that the number can vary a little.

I don't think Jill Hultquist's recruiting priorities are unreasonable. Seems she thinks she needs "Top-50" TRN talent to compete in the Pac-12. I can't argue with that. She tries to get it domestically as the top priority and if she is successful, she never has to go to her secondary priorities. If she can't get top 50 talent domestically, then she goes to the next priority, which is apparently international recruits.

Contrary to some suggestions, I believe UW is at a recruiting disadvantage to most other Pac-12 teams and lots of top programs in the South and Southeast. So it would not surprise me if UW cannot get two top-50s domestically every year.

I am not going to tell Jill Hultquist that her first priority should be top-200 (4-star) talent from around her back yard. I think she's got it down pretty good........and based on her longevity at UW (8 years), I am guessing her AD agrees.

The actual quote she gave in the original article was "It's hard to rebuild a team if you lose the top 20, 30 American players to the traditional powerhouse programmes each year."

Click to expand...

yes, it's hard. This is the pack 12 we are talking about. If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn how to pee in the tall grass. But its her job. That's what I meant when I said lazy. If she is not capable of recruiting any American players worthy of her program, than I say she is not doing her job.

The part that is ascribed to her "... she picks a few select American players each year and offers them scholarships first. If they don't take them she goes international." was NOT quote and could be entirely taken out of context of her conversation or not even what she meant. Obviously she is just not offering blue chip players in America.

Click to expand...

Given her hit rate with these few select offers, she can't be diving too far down the list of 5 stars. As Mr. Bill said, maybe she will go to 50. But she does not have record of recruiting them either.

So if that is the case she is actually not offering you unless you are blue chip (top 25) or 5 star. 5 star looks like it goes down to around 60-70. I am sure she would take someone in the 60-70 range.

Click to expand...

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.

So if you are 4 star or lower you have to walk on. Is that unreasonable for a PAC 12 school?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.

Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

Click to expand...

Times have come and gone... You're still hanging on to "Buy American"?

What's the difference if she takes 4 star players over foreign kids? You're going to start moving up in your conference? Blue chips are going to start knocking on your door?

Why are you sure of this ? Not consistent with her own quotes or Mr. Bill's experience.

Yes, it is, becuase she is not an passive actor in this situation. It's her job, one might argue her even her primary(but not exclusive) responsibility, to recruit players. If the traditional powerhouses take the top 20,30, and she can't get any of those, well, whose fault is that ? Blame it on the weather ? If its completely unreasonable for her to compete in her conference with at least some American Scholarship players, and this is completely unachievable, than they should change conferences, or just drop tennis. But the simple fact is, its not. Other teams in her conference have better records, with more American kids, who were not necessarily even 5 stars. Arizona, which used to get 5 stars, now is recruiting blue chips. First step is an attitude adjustment.

It is also unreasonable is becuase she has shown many of the foreign kids she has offered scholarships are probably the equivalent of 4 star level players players. Even if unintentional, a by product of the difficulty if foreign recruiting, her records shows that she has a lower standard for foreign players than she does for Americans.

Click to expand...

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

Click to expand...

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24) and ahead, in most cases significantly, of all the other Pac 12 schools, including Arizona(#120). Other rankings may have them ranked differently. I don't know where you draw the line at prestigious.

I tired of going over the same arguments over and over. Fine you think she is doing a terrible job. I think she is doing an ok job. But none of it matters. The only person that matters is her boss and she is going on her 8th year.

All your whining is not going to change anything. Welcome to 21st century. It is a global market. You and your tennis kids better adjust to the foreign competition, it is not going away.

Click to expand...

I'm not forcing you to argue with me. I am well ware of the fact that I am not her boss. But her boss is not the only person the matters. The foreign scholarship problem will go away, one way or another, eventually. Either coaches, AD's, conference heads, the ITA and NCAA will wake up and realize that teams dominated by foreigners are hurting college tennis and start to control it, or more and more tennis programs will get canceled. Sorry, but when a school is looking to save money, and the AD wakes up and notices that his last place tennis program is 90% foreign, but his last place soccer squad is 75% American, where is he going to decide to save money ?

For all the people who say foreigners are good for American tennis, they never seem to be able to answer the question "how is it good for American tennis when an all foreign team plays another all foreign team?" That question was asked and nobody bothered to answer it.

As for it being a global market, that's wrong. It's global on the demand side, but not on the supply side. Market implies trade. If foreign schools had tennis scholarships and they recruited Americans, it would be free market, and I would have no problem with it. But they don't. No other sport has anywhere near the problem tennis has.

I have said numerous times that I, and most of the people appalled by the current situation, are not opposed to some foreigners. But the situation is out of hand and getting worse. I guess you guys like it that way and want the rest of us to just quit "whining", shut up and accept it. Maybe you have your own vested interests, I don't know and don't care.